Steyn, well, Steyn is saying that Mike Mann is not a Nobel Prize winner. Tell Richard Tol. At this point he is on to the persecution of Exxon and that the science is not settled. Awfully loud, may be mike hugging

Titley is up now. As a former naval officer he starts with sea level rise, points out that risk management shows there is a serious problem putting theory and observation together. What do we know, that the earth's climate is changing, that it associated with greenhouse gases, that we can mitigate the problem. "If you wait for 100% certainty on the battlefield, you will probably be dead"

What to do. We are already paying the costs, New Orleans, Sandy, Alaska. Not some mid-tropospheric change in the atmosphere.

Decarbonization will happen, the only question is how fast. US must lead.
----------------
Cruz is talking to Happer, basically pushing that CO2 is good. Happer backs off pointing out that higher CO2 was 5 million years ago.

Cruz says that this proves that high CO2 not related to industrialization.

Cruz talks to Titley about the pause. Titley points out that unlike Christy he is not talking about the last 40 years.

Titley says what pause? Points out that satellite data has had major errors in it.

Cruz says that gee, no rise for seven years, etc. Titley takes his head off, pointing out that the argument requires end point picking (Ei's prediction Reps are going to stay away from Titley)

------------------------------

Peters points out that 97% of scientists hold the IPCC consensus position, as do major companies.

Goes to Titley about planning for the military and how there are always caveats but what sort of certainty will be needed. Titley says 97% is like great. Points out that intelligence evaluations deals with people who are trying to deceive us, but with climate we are dealing with physics.

Peters shifts to certainty that mission commanders have with weather forecasts. Titley points out that weather uncertainty can be framed in terms of risk. The other part of risk is impact management.

Peters asks about difference btw weather and climate. Titley says you live in weather, you plan in climate.

--------------------------

Danes Montanta (R) starts on coal jobs. Tries to middle btw coal and jobs and environment. Goes after EPA clean power plan. Interesting that he does not go full Cruz. Talks to Christy about impact on ghg.

Christy dons bleeding heart. Says war on coal is a war on Africa and Clean Power Plan will have no effect on GHGs. Mentions China under-reporting but not that China emissions have decreased.

Asks Curry about how the Clean Power Plan will stifle innovation. Curry looks under desk for an answer, finding none says we need more research. Finally comes up with you have to give people funding to fail to find good ones. This should go well with those who went after Obama for funding Solyndra.

-----------------------

Schatz (D) says, hey, maybe everybody else is wrong, but otoh, bet with the 97%. Points out that deniers are not funded much because everyone else thinks they are fantasizing. Gives a shout out to John Cook and SKS. Points out that there may be a quack out there who thinks that smoking does not cause cancel (down Russell), but please keep that one away from him.

Asks Titley to describe the GHG mechanism. Titley points out that that is cutting edge 19th century science. A bunch of old white dudes figured that out. Fast description of GH effect, and that while it is necessary, too much of a good thing is bad.

Steyn butts in. Says the 97% does not argue for action, uses term pro climate people. Who is against climate Eli asks. Says you need 100% agreement. Gliver, etc. Let's build the Dutch barrier around New York.

-----------------------

Cruz plays Galileo card.

----------------------

Next up is Udall (D). Cruz can't get his R colleagues to come to the meeting. Udall points out that this meeting is an attack on scientists.

Asks Titley if there is any time. Titley says that there is nothing as useless as the runway behind you. Points out that even Curry said that more research on energy is needed.

Asks Titley was he always convinced. Titley says that not always, because he comes from a weather model background. Uses initial value vs. boundary value point. When asked by CNO to look at this, like a reformed smoker, he saw all these independent lines of evidence.

Asks Titley if science has progressed. Titley says progress in science is not linear. Overall level of confidence in basic GHG theory has increased

----------------------

Another Democrat (Markey) If there was an R in the room it would have been his or her turn. Every Republican hates Cruz and won't show up.

Asks Titley about weather 2014 was record year.

Answer is yes. Senator turns to COP 21. Calls committee last redoubt of denial. Points out that the panel has 4 deniers and 1 scientist. Tells Titley that, unlike Galileo he will get his apology faster than Galileo.

Senator invokes Kennedy's race to the moon as a challenge. Says that as this was to meet the threat from communism, we now face a threat to our national security from climate change and need to meet is.

Happer Christy and Curry are sitting there like wooden indians.

Senator says that Climate Science sits on a foundation of 150 years of basic research. Republicans insist that this existential challenge is an illusion. It is time to stop this denial. Strong statement.

Martin lists the many signs of global warming and says that the Earth is in the emergency

Curry demands to not be called a denier. Steyn bigfoots. Curry talks about Antartica, rise in temperature. Markey points out that 2015 is warmest ever, that this warming may have variability but the trend is straight up. Steyn tries to bigfoot, finds that Markey knows more than him.

Steyn tries to say that it was cold in Plymouth Rock

Food fight breaks out on percentage of human responsibility

Titley playing the voice of reason (somebunny had to) points to IPCC report saying humans are responsible for vast majority of warming.

-----------------------

Bill Nelson (another Dem) asks about surface temp chart and relation to SST. Titley says that 90% of the excess heat goes into the ocean. Nelson asks what happens to warm water. Answer it expands. Nelson point out that this will increase sea level

Nelson starts talking about GoreSAT measurements of heat in and heat out as a future indicator. Titley points out that this would be basic physics

Titley describes problems climate change is making for military.

---------------------

Cruz starts with second round. Asks Curry about the statistical prob that 2014 was not the warmest year. Trying to make out that 2014 was not the warmest year. See earlier this year discussion.

Cruz gets into discussion about homogenization

Curry does not quite go there, retreating to natural variability. Happer is playing potted plant. Curry tries to say ocean temperatures are not well characterized, satellite data is the gold standard. Throws a wrench into Cruz by pointing out that going from emissions to temperature is not trivial.

Cruz invites Steyn to beat on the hockey stick and homogenization. Steyn picks up cudgel. For some reason Steyn is shouting. Beats on Gavin Schmidt for not standing next to thermometers. Gavin, of course is a juggler.

Tries to go after Titley for not talking about ISIS. Points out that there are a lot more Africans and that is the security threat. Does a Trump imitation.

Happer goes to cross calibration with sondes.

Cruz is not happy with https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/

Curry agrees.

Curry says she has no federal funding. Interesting.

Cruz asks about AAAS letter. Curry says that Marsha McNutt has stated that the debate is over. This must not be allowed, we must have debate about whether the earth is flat.

Steyn says that statisticians think climate science is not very good. Lies about majority of engineers, physicists, etc not holding to IPCC consensus.

Cruz trying to corner Titley about which is greater climate change or ISIS. Titley says both.

---------------------------

Nelson points out that seal level rise in Bangladesh will cause a huge displacement and that is not a good thing. Nelson prepares dagger. How he respects Cruz, etc. Points out that the Rs. have tried to stake Mike Mann in the Serengheti, that the words climate change were outlawed, etc. When talk about muzzling of scientists on climate change, scientists actually had two Rs vote not to.

------------------------

Peters points out that the three scientists on the R side are way out of the consensus, Steyn is a political commentator. OK, says Peters, thats the 3, where are the 97.

Cruz has to sit there because there are no Rs to pass the gavel to. He must have to use the men's room.

Peters enters the report of the US Climate Change Program into evidence.

Peters asks Titley to deal with the problems of the satellite measurements. Titley says it's not rocket science, it's harder. No thermometers in space. Mispronounces microwave. Points out there are different frequencies which are mostly sensitive to different altitudes, but not entirely. Talks about number of satillites, etc. It is hard

Peters asks how climate models compare. Titley goes with George Box that all models are wrong, some useful. Says that GCMs are useful. Refers to the 1980 Hansen and Lacis paper which pointed to warming, but less than observed. Climate models are useful and they help us understand the future.

Peters asks about skepticism and peer review. Titley says that skepticism drives science, and how it sometimes changes orthrodoxy. Peer review is not a guarantee says that field is well summarized and manuscript is not off the wall.

Christy is chopped liver. Will he say something.

Peters asks Titley about natural variability. Titley says human impact mostly about GHG but also land use and ag. That fossil fuel burning is putting billions of tons into atm. Seeing rainfall. Atm cn hold more water. Temperature is melting ice. We have built human civilization on climate stability.

Titley says we can put our seat belts on and have a bumpy ride, or we can ignore the warning and have a very bad ride indeed.

Peters asks about higher CO2 in the distant past. Titley points out that then there were few (no) people. Plants do better, but so do weeds. There are ag thresholds, what about water cycle, there are huge issues of ag in a changing climate.

Peters enters studies by Long and Meyers about CO2 levels.

Peters enters Whitehouse speech to refute statements of Steyn

------------------------

Cruz gets ready to wrap up

Happer says, hey you use IR to measure temperature in the hospital.

Cruz tries to wrap up with a Gish Gallop.

---------------------

Send some whiskey to Dave Titley and some donations to the Democratic Senators.

Sorry to see that none of the minority questioned Christy's use of the TMT vs model data in his written submission. Christy's live presentation included a graph showing average of his calculated climate models as a single thick red line against some satellite data. I couldn't catch whether that graph used satellite data was from the TMT or the TLT and, of course, he didn't specify v5.6 or v6.0. The first graph in his written submission pointedly notes that the last data point includes November 2015 data, which is still not posted on his web page. That graph was shown on a large chart later in the hearing, but no one really discussed it. And, there are 37 data points (by eye, apparently leaving out 1979) so he's probably cooked the moving average again, adding 3? more years to the original data, just as he did with the monthly data for v6.0.

Christy was remarkably silent and his presentation was short. Looks like he ran a marathon over the weekend and is still recovering. Maybe he was afraid to get into the question about the accuracy of the satellite data, given the possibility that one of the Senators might actually know about it. Titley gave a very brief description of the corrections applied to the MSU/AMSU data, but didn't go deep enough to point out that the TMT 5.6 is contaminated by the cooling in the stratosphere, therefore isn't a good data series to use. And, there are more analysis of the MSU/AMSU as well, such as the TTT from U. Washington with a trend of 0.114K per decade compared with the RSS TLT trend of 0.122k per decade.

Cruz can go back to running around Iowa and claim that there's no global warming, since the now "vetted" satellite data confirms his claim. Unless, of course, he stays in DC to shut down the Government with another filibuster as the funds are cutoff after 11 Dec. For those interested, Cruz closed the hearing by stating that the record would be open for 2 more weeks for questions directed to the witnesses, which would then require a response...

I went and chased down Steyn's reference to "equity more important than Democracy" in Nature. It was a 3 paragraph letter in the Correspondence section from 3 Danish scientists about differing political power between interests in the climate debate. Not quite how he characterized it, but it was the title of the letter.

Were you folks able to watch something other then the live feed as the event was taking place? Is the video or audio of the hearing archived anywhere? I've searched on C-SPAN, the the senate hearing web page, and can't find any link.

"Steyn says that statisticians think climate science is not very good. Lies about majority of engineers, physicists, etc not holding to IPCC consensus."

What DO statisticians, engineers, physicists, etc think about climate science, the IPCC, etc? I don't think it's clear. Perhaps the Oregon Petition is relevant. Someone should do a real survey about their range of views. I suspect most would be lukewarmers.

I see that the hapless Happer is being stoutly defended by Patrick Moore, courtesy of the vehicles of Watts and Spencer. The nuttery of Moore's hyperbolic lying is breath-taking, but the willingness of Spencer to pile right onto the wagon comes in impressively closely.

One muses on whether he's looking for distractions. In particular I wonder if he's starting to feel the heat over the accuracy of his satellite IR calculations...?

Is This Congressman's 'Oversight' An Effort To Hobble Climate Science?http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458476435/is-this-congressmans-oversight-an-effort-to-hobble-climate-science(two more letters from scientists to NOAA's Dr. Sullivan)

Lamar Smith sez ...

"I have a couple of concerns about this study," the congressman tells NPR. "One, the timing is very suspicious, right before the climate meeting in Paris. Two, we have whistleblowers who have told us it was rushed, just to get it out for the Paris meeting, and some scientists felt like it had not been sufficiently vetted."

Smith says his biggest concern was that the study did not include satellite data, which he calls the gold standard. "It didn't seem to me to be a completely honest study," he says.

Asked if the normal peer review process done at a major journal like Science wouldn't have flagged any missing information or cherry picking of data, Smith says, "I don't think that Science magazine had access to a whistleblower like we did, saying it had been rushed and had not been sufficiently peer-reviewed."

"And, you know," the congressman adds, "Science magazine may have its own bias. I don't know, maybe they wanted to rush it out before the Paris summit as well."

Thanks, Eli. I wasn't able to watch the circus myself. I read some of the transcripts - mostly as expected, except Mark Steyn's was much more extreme than I thought it would be. Did he embarrass even the hard core Republicans I wonder - or was it just what they were looking for?

So, five Democrat Senators and only two GOP, including Cruz himself. Titley therefore ends up doing most of the talking, even though the witness panel was stacked in advance, and does a good job handling Cruz's questions to him.

I've started watching the full hearing and the very first and immediate impression is that your buddy ted Cruz is nuttier than a squirrel's winter stash.

What has me gobsmacked at the moment though is how politically-partisan and -ideological is John Christy, with respect to his assertions about the science of climate change. Prior to this I'd thought that his non-acceptance of a large part of the science was due to a personal scientifically-ideological blindspot, but it seems that it's inextricably welded to his politics and general social/economic conservatism.

And seriously, a call for "red science"?! He could have whole Republican Institutions for the Study of Climate Change, but they will no more change the physical facts* of global warming and of climate change than Pope Paul V was able to achieve when he ordered helicentrism be declared heretical. These modern-day Galileo wannabes need to seriously look at themselves in their mirrors, and think about one of Galileo's comments to Kepler:

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy [the Collegium Romanum] who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

Christy obviously wants his own Collegium Romanum but the (lunar...) mountains of scientific evidence supporting the physics of global warming will not be dissuaded by any such endeavour. And certainly outside the States, the rest of the world's science will continue to show what it has for over a century and a half - that human emissions of the 'greenhouse' gas CO2 are warming the planet, and that warming is a Bad Thing.

And one day, when the ecological and geopolitical consequences of human-caused warming come knocking on the door, these conservative ideologues will be some of the loudest to bleat and rail and gnash their teeth and pull their hair. By then though there's little that will be able to be done to stem the implacable behemoth of climate impact and the tide of people fighting* to survive it.

[*of course it's not ever about changing the facts, but about the political outcomes that might be achieved by distorting them...

** For any and all interpretations of "fighting" that one might wish to observe...]

She says in her introductory paragraphs that there is "considerable [scientific] uncertainty and disagreement whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability." Really? Only if by "uncertainty and disagreement" one stretches to include the ravings of the ignorati...

She also lists "how much the planet will warm in the 21st century." This is actually a two-part issue. Whilst there is some variance in the estimation of climate sensitivity the best evidence still points to 3 °C, but even taking a hugely optimistic leap to half this, the long-term consequences of doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 would still be profoundly serious. And this leads to the second issue - the effects of global warming will continue to increase in magnitude beyond 2100, and we have as much responsibility to generations and species two, three, four hundred years hence, as we do to those twenty, thirty and forty years hence.

This is followed by repeated assertions of the above, assertions which are at odds with a vast corpus of literature of which she is either ignorant or which she is choosing to ignore. She repeats again her meme of uncertainty, which seems to be an attempt to progress one of the limited number of concepts in atmospheric modelling to come from her proportionately small number of first authored papers. (As an aside, one-trick ponies like this would be under the microscope in my institution, if they continued to peddle a notion but didn't support their work with a defensible body of evidence...)

The rest is basically what Professor Rabbet noted - Curry threatening to go eat worms. Oh, and if anyone is wondering whether Curry's apparent difficulty in getting funding is a result of a conspiracy against her, go read the link in the previous paragraph.

"..his non-acceptance of a large part of the science was due to a personal scientifically-ideological blindspot,.." - Bernard J, the à priorì is there is no innocence in climate revisionm. Assume the worst every time.These people are now drowning Cumbria, Chennai et cetera. Accuse!

He says that CO2 is not a pollutant, because we breath it out "at forty thousand parts per million". Right. There's a reason why we breathe it out... We also shit, and shit is also great for plants, but too much of it in too constricted an environment...

Shit, piss, CO2. You work it out.

Happer says that "...many plants are having a hard time performing as well as they're designed to perform because the CO2 levels are too low and the oxygen levels are too high. I won't go into the details because there's not much dispute about that."

Gack. What tosh. Modern plants are well adapted to the CO2 levels of today, levels that have been stable for many millennia, and indeed if CO2 levels are artificially increased plants close their stomata to save water - because they're not needing the extra CO2 at the rate that it comes in under artificial increase. Happer himself makes the point about plants better surviving droughts in these conditions, which should be a clue that he's run afoul of Sprengel's/Leibig's law of the Minimum...

Further, under increased CO2 levels some plant taxa are unable to metabolise carbon and nitrogen in appropriate ratios, leading to issues both for themselves and for herbivores that depend on them (including humans...). Also, different taxa have different responses to increased CO2, and many plants that respond best under high CO2 are prone to weediness...

It never ceases to flummox me that the Denialati conflate increased growth under artifical conditions of water, nutrient and/or CO2 increase with increased planetary benefit. Humans too can growth well and to extremes under increased calory intake, but as the epidemic of obesity and obesity-related diseases indicates this is not good for our physiologies: shifting global CO2 concentration will have many adverse ecological consequences too, quite apart from the climatological and ocean chemistry effects - the latter of which Happer completely ignores...

And oxygen is too high?! FFS, this is so nonsensical that one doesn't know where to start un-knotting the ball of tangled Stupid.

Happer thinks, like Christie, that we need a "Team B" because apparently the scientific method is not adversarial enough. He says that "we don't have two labs for climate, we have one organisation, one world organisation, the IPCC. We have one funding agency that follows the IPCC..." and he wants to "set aside funding that is designed to be for the 'other side'..." because "there's nothing adversarial in the [climate] science."

What bollocks.

Apparently Happer doesn't realise that the IPCC doesn't conduct or even dictate who does what science when, where or how, or that there is more than one organisation in the US - let alone the world - that conducts research into the science of climate. It's astounding that he displays no clue about what the IPCC actually does...

And he seems to have totally and utterly missed how science operates. For my own I know damned well the joy in the labs, offices and tea rooms when a paper is published refuting someone else's work. Science is rough and tumble, with researchers always looking for something new or overturning, and the existence of consensus after so much work and so much retesting in climatology indicates not a conspiracy or a club but the soundess of the underlying principles.

"Team B" isn't about scientifically challenging prior theories and conclusions, it's about pseudoscientific cherry-picking and obfuscation to produce grist for the propaganda mills of the ideological ratbaggery.

Speaking of ratbags, I'm pausing at Steyn. I feel the need for some better culture in my own humble opinion than what I'm about to see, so I'm going to talk to some pond scum.

Bernard, being of southern heritage you may not have picked up on the red team/team B that Christy (and Happer or Curry) pushed. It's roots go back to the 1970s when the right wing was claiming that the CIA underestimated the military threat from the Soviet Union. They set up (Bush was CIA director) a Team B which in turn delivered the required scary document.

After the USSR fell apart it turned out that the CIA had over weighted USSR military capability. Team B was simply delusional.

There remain familiar names that took part, and some of them showed up after 9/11. Others had passed.

When Eli heard Team B in two of the opening statements of the witnesses, the Bunny thought, oh no, that is going to be what this farce is about, setting up another Team B, but fortunately the hate of the Rs for Cruz and Cruz's losing the thread delivered us.

Science is rough and tumble, with researchers always looking for something new or overturning

Speaking of 'overturning', it's too bad most of you haven't noticed that because of this decadal level dithering there are some laws of physics that must be ... ahem ... let's just say 'tuned', because now you are committed not only to a fully solar powered electric society, but you are also committed to several times that amount of solar powered energy in order to just decarbonize the atmosphere from the damages done by that dithering. Fortunately, you guys are in luck.

And that's if you quit cold turkey right now. So yes, overturning.

Seriously, you are way beyond adaptation and remediation. From my seat, a Manhattan style physics overturning extravaganza is required.

Interesting that Republican Senators hate Cruz more than they love climate denialism. I wish that got out in the mainstream media. So Democrats and the Titley got the lion's share of exposure.

Cruz managed to lose the moment that he stacked in his favor because he's such a hated figure, even on issues where the Republicans (except for a few) don't disagree. My guess is he doesn't try this again, unless he can repair a few bridges with Republicans.

There's an interesting parallel between Cruz and John Edwards, who was also widely disliked in the Senate. Maybe it's just showboating, but maybe it's something more about personalities.

Cruz1 Trump 0 What a great debate. Tired of the same old , same old?Listen to some alternative views.Without criticising or denigrating the people concerned.Easy? Apparently not.The scientists here, and we are talking 4 real scientists are experts in their fields.So expert in the example of Dr Spencer that he was one of the scientists put in charge of using satellite information to give a map earth's atmospheric temperatures.No one commenting here is even close to understanding the work he has done. But because he has the temerity to question the dogma, you mock him, and science rather than try to open your minds to the fact that hey, maybe once in a hundred years I might have got it wrong.The more moaning drivel the better I feel.It confirms that the blinkers are on full force

Good one Wussell, Fancy getting a sign wrong .He did correct it then?UAH still showed a pause?And we cannot think of others that have got there sums wrong and were man enough to admit it , ATTP on several occasions I recall .And someone else who used the wrong sign and refused to correct it?So go ahead and use snigger, Or admit that he is using very complex science, government approved, at a level you can only dream of.You do not like the results .Perhaps you should show a little humility, acknowledge that your opponents are real people too and some are very bright and have reasons to doubt your faith.If you wish to use dogma instead , fine, whatever, go ahead and snipe and denigrate.If it makes you happy and stops you thinking I do not want to mar your happiness.

Or angech, you could refer to the numerous and far more direct proxies for surface warming. Like thermometers and physical observations in direct contact with the surface. Optical imaging of surface features works pretty well too. But I understand how inconvenient reality is for people like yourself.

8cetcGreat nameCan we agree that both are legitimate measuring systems and that they are in fundamental disagreement?Good.Do you really want to argue whose is bigger or better?Fine.At the end of the day both are legitimate measuring systems .I can match you fault for fault or better value for value on each.I can point out that it took a lot of money to put the satellite up and the system up and very clever scientists derived ways of measuring information that is continuous, has data that covers 90% of the world from the same instruments, that measures one uniform layer independent of the vagaries of the surface composition itself .The sceptical problems with measuring and merging two different surfaces, with inconsistency of measuring sites, with failing instruments giving dodgy readings, with failed instruments needing averaged readings, with human observers past and present who entered data at different times or when they felt like it, with 30,000 sites listed but over half only estimated readings and the rest a mixture of failing failed and made up sites ,moved sites and adjusted sites is not the problem.The fact that I can state this and "believe" itWhile you can state and believe the opposite , and put your fingers in your ears when you hear my comments is the problem.I would love for our host to find a way to communicate across this unbridgeable gap.But as he and I know attempts are futile.You just get more flack the more you try.The answers will come in time, but when you argue it would be good to argue with a sound argument , not a comparison.There are differences. Between two good measuring systems.Is it purely due to the difference in the two adjacent layers?Is one layer the better one to use?Is there a flaw in the measurers or measurements?If you found out tomorrow you had been gamed would it really alter your or my view(If I found out tomorrow I had been gamed would it change my view)Probably not for either of us.But you could at least ask yourself the question.Or as the Climate Conference said you "should" ask the question , not shall.Thanks for your input, seriously.

1) You're a crank who already thinks you have all the answers.2) You're an innumerate crackpot without a clue how physics works.3) You're a fascist who thinks everyone should agree with you.4) You're a fake. A fraud. A flim flam man, huckster, etc.5) You are transparent, easily recognized for what you are (see above).

The random string which appears to be identical every time I comment, is a result of some weird obsolete google software this blog uses. I am unable to comment here any other way since I don't participate in social media whose only purpose is stealing personal information for profit. But I do happen to have an usable email which for some reason gets converted by authentication to a string.

you can avoid tracking. Create an OpenID account any of the dozen or more sites, or roll your own as they explain. If you want to avoid the tracking, you have to jump through two simple hoops.

1) sign in to the account in order to post a comment here, and2) sign out of the account after you post your comment.

Yeah, if you're using Google, they'll give you a pre-selected checkbox you have to uncheck each time so you don't stay logged into their "everything via Google" system. Same I'm sure for everything else.

Yeah, they do want to track you and do want to sell you to advertisers.

But, in fact, not everyone already knows who you are, and any of the comments posted under those random number strings might be someone just spoofing you.

Try the OpenID string. Leave minimal info at the site you sign up with (WordPress, Google, AIM, whatever); use a throwaway email address. Pull the shades. Don't talk on the phone. Avoid the tracking.

But get a unique ID here so we can tell you from the parodies and poes, eh?

Everett nice post on models of middle troposphere as opposed to observations and the difference between them at Climate etcRe recent Christy house of reps presentation. Much more obvious how wrong the models are when all those sliding ice sheets do not get in the way.I guess the only real way of measuring the earth's real temperature would be by satellites measuring the emitted radiation level.Technically possible and avoids all those thermometers being hit by the sliding ice.

8c thank you for input.You certainly know how to run a good convincing argument.So you win🙂Random string apology generated by being beaten by a great argument

Nice, you appear to want to move the goalposts aka an informal logical fallacy.

Speaking of Abbott and Costello, err Christy and Spencer (Christy is the straight guy, Spencer not so much (not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you)).

But wait ... I found the NOAA before and after data, v3.5.4 (thru 2014-12) versus current v4.0.0 (as of 2015-10) ... and all I can say it's absolutely despicable and diabolical what those political scientists did, I tell you, despicable and diabolical ...

OMFG! NOAA has the EXACT same linear trend over the common 36 years. NOAA must of cheated with Osama's help just in time for COP21 there can be no other explanation.

RSS v3.3 (1979-01 thru 2015-09),1.21

So according to Ted Cruz and Lamar Smith (and Watts and Curry and Monkers) this is the so called "gold standard" of MSU measurements. Now when I hear the words "gold standard" I immediately think of price FIXING, as in the "gold standard" is set to a FIXED price or a FLATLINED price if you prefer.

So in keeping with this "idea" of "gold standard" and "price fixing" what does UAH do ...

For some rather odd reason Curry showed certain versions of UAH and RSS data together to redefine or establish a FIXED "gold standard" but the "official nasa.gov UAH "gold standard" is nowheres to be seen. I wonder why?

Maybe its just me, but I'm sort of thinking that the House and Senate are looking the wrong way on purpose (looking at plots by Monkers and Godtard and Curry no less) and that their timing is rather remarkable considering the COP21 meeting timeline (see previous comment above).

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.